John Andrew Berton, Jr., writes in this article about the application of older film theories to digital cinema. He argues that theories created when cinema first appeared (in the late 1800s-early 1900s) hold some relevance to the technologies currently emerging. The sense of novelty and the display of technicality over creativity can be found in the emergence of both traditional cinema and digital cinema; because the two technologies have found such common ground here, the same theories about the transparency of the technical achievement of the images can be applied to both eras of cinema. The theories he utilizes focus on moving both “new” technologies’ emphases away from technical achievement and towards a more artistic approach and appreciation. Concepts by Melies, Kuleshov, and a few others – which came about a few years after cinema and first arrived, and once its novelty began to wear off – pointed to the need to add artistry and direction to this new technology. Berton wants to apply these concepts to digital cinema, with the reasoning that “history repeats itself”: the emergence of new technologies (at least media ones) tend to follow this similar pattern of awe with the technical nature of the creation that lasts until prodded to turn towards a more content-driven approach.
Berton’s ideas here hold a lot of relevance to my paper because he somewhat suggests that old media and new media perhaps faced similar beginnings. Since we’re more or less now still in the beginning of the new media phase, we’ve been able to experience firsthand if Berton is correct. I think that there was a time when digital media was so new and cool, that anything it created was met with awe and glee. This has worn off now, but I believe this has transferred to a certain extent to new media technologies like the iPod and the cell phone. Pretty much anything you put on an iPod (at least to the younger generation) is cool not because of what you’re watching, but because you’re using the technology. We’re still starting to figure out what movies and clips work best on a 2” portable screen; it’s likely we won’t discover a good answer for awhile. In the meantime, we’re in the pre-theory phase. Melies and Kuleshov don’t yet apply to the iPod (but do, perhaps arguably, to the computer, which is an interesting separation). Thus, Berton’s overall concept can be applied to my paper in a unique and unexpected way.
Berton’s ideas here hold a lot of relevance to my paper because he somewhat suggests that old media and new media perhaps faced similar beginnings. Since we’re more or less now still in the beginning of the new media phase, we’ve been able to experience firsthand if Berton is correct. I think that there was a time when digital media was so new and cool, that anything it created was met with awe and glee. This has worn off now, but I believe this has transferred to a certain extent to new media technologies like the iPod and the cell phone. Pretty much anything you put on an iPod (at least to the younger generation) is cool not because of what you’re watching, but because you’re using the technology. We’re still starting to figure out what movies and clips work best on a 2” portable screen; it’s likely we won’t discover a good answer for awhile. In the meantime, we’re in the pre-theory phase. Melies and Kuleshov don’t yet apply to the iPod (but do, perhaps arguably, to the computer, which is an interesting separation). Thus, Berton’s overall concept can be applied to my paper in a unique and unexpected way.
belongs to The Relationship Between Audience Engagement with Screens in Both Old and New Media project
tagged Digital_Cinema Film_Theory New_Media Technology
by knewbold
...on 13-MAR-07
Digital dialectic : new essays on new media / edited by Peter Lunenfeld. [0262122138 (hardcover : alk. paper) ] Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, c1999.
Call#: Van Pelt Library QA76.9.C66 D54 1999
Call#: Van Pelt Library QA76.9.C66 D54 1999
The Digital Dialectic, edited by Peter Lunenfeld, features a number of essays focused on resolving apparent contradictions that arise in new media theories. The main approach taken by most of the authors here is to utilize conceptual ways of viewing new media in tandem with a practical outlook on the potentiality of this novel group of technologies. As Lunenfeld explains, these essays look to see where new media can go rather than simply where it is. His introduction does a good, albeit brief, job of outlining what he means by dialectic and how this could apply to new media; he also fleshes out a definition of “digital” and compares this to analog, thereby inviting comparisons that could provide useful for my investigation. However, Lunenfeld and the other authors fail to really explain the useful significance of examining this dialectic. Other than urging us to not take an “all or nothing” approach to this new media, no real definitive conclusions come from these reports. Perhaps this is the point, since new media studies have only existed for a relatively short period of time. Or perhaps I’ve been somewhat desensitized to this way of thinking since I’ve grown up existing in and accepting this type of new media compromise. Either way, a little more push towards a greater practical application for these theories would have helped.
Aside from the introduction and general tidbits taken from the book, I think Lev Manovich’s essay, “What is Digital Cinema?” provides the greatest information and opinions for my paper topic. This essay examines how tracing the filmic image change from “traditional” film to digital technology allows for a formation of the logic of the digital moving image. This fits in well with my paper because I want to compare older screen technologies (film and TV) with newer image methods of production; Manovich’s thesis thus provides me with at least one argument through which I can examine my own views on differences in old and new filmic screen images. Manovich also provides some background information on what he considers “digital media” to be, including its evolution from multimedia and thus its distance from traditional cinematic realism. But, his main example, that of the CD-ROM, is slightly outdated and not as useful to my direct purposes – therefore, I plan on using newer examples from more recent sources in my paper.
belongs to The Relationship Between Audience Engagement with Screens in Both Old and New Media project
tagged Digital_Cinema Digital_Media Film Screen Theory
by knewbold
...on 13-MAR-07


